Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Infobox Tennis HOF ID should be updated!

Just a heads up the "tennishofid" needs to be updated as it's sending users to a broken link at the tennisfame.com page.

For example, on Martina Hingis, currently it sends users to: https://www.tennisfame.com/hall-of-famers/martina-hingis which is a broken page. The current format should now be: http://www.tennisfame.com/First Name-Last Name In the provided example, the current page is now: https://www.tennisfame.com/martina-hingis

Thanks, Dov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dovaleh (talk • contribs) 19:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like you did it on the template doc... thanks for the info. I corrected the main template so it should work now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

NOTE - I have reverted myself and your document entry. It seems the Hall of Fame has not really changed. All the older HoF members use the hall-of-famers/ location. New ones like Hingis skip that addition. So it's more complicated than a simple change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The Tennis HoF has just launched a redesigned website. Looks good and it seems that all inductees now again share a common url: www.tennisfame.com/hall-of-famers/inductees/<player name>. If we can confirm this it should be straightforward to update the infobox tennis biography and external link templates. Hopefully a bot can take care of all other link updates in e.g. references and non-template external links.--Wolbo (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Tennis events template

On the Talk page of the {{tennis events}} template, used on articles like 2015 Brisbane International – Men's Singles, a proposal has been made to add a couple of fields to provide readers with more context on the articles. The template currently looks as follows:

WikiProject Tennis 2015 Brisbane International Champion Roger Federer Runner-up Milos Raonic Score 6–4, 6–7(2–7), 6–4

Please give your feedback at the Template Talk page.--Wolbo (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Some more feedback on this discussion would be helpful.--Wolbo (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Lists of tennis players - shortening and conformity

Wolbo suggested moving this from Talk:List of female tennis players because it could affect two articles and I concurred. Right now we have a List of male tennis players and a List of female tennis players. The men's list with it's current criteria, is quite long and I'm sure it's missing hundreds of players. It's criteria are to include every male player that 1) has been ranked in the top 25 in singles in the "Open Era", or 2) been ranked in the top 5 prior to the Open Era, or 3) has been a singles quarterfinalist or better at a Grand Slam tournament, or 4) has reached the finals of any year end event, or 5) has been a singles medalist at the Olympics, or 6) a team has won a Grand Slam or Olympic doubles title or have been ranked world No. 1 in doubles. I don't have a big problem with this except it favors recent-ism by allowing top 25 now but only top 5 before the Open Era.

My bigger concern is the women's article. It is bloat and trivia and recent-ism to the extreme and is probably missing thousands of players. It's criteria is 1) WTA Top 200 world rankings on or after January 1, 2000, or 2) WTA Top 100 world rankings before January 1, 2000, or 3) she must have reached at least the quarterfinals of a Grand Slam tournament before the inception of the WTA world rankings system. For doubles, she must have won at least one WTA Tour event.

I find the ladies ridiculously long and favoring the post Open Era and really favoring post 2000. It should at the very least be shortened to the same criteria as the men. I would actually suggest the following for both. Singles - any of the following

• Top 25 since official WTA/ATP rankings were kept.
• Top 10 of semi-official almanac/magazines/other players lists prior to official rankings.
• Quarterfinals or better in any Grand Slam tournament
• Reached the finals of any year-end event
• Earn any medal at the Olympics

Doubles - any of the following

• A player/team has won an Grand Slam tournament or Olympic doubles title.
• A player/team has been ranked No. 1

These could be worded differently or tweaked a bit, but I think this would cover what we need without forgetting players of the past or bloating things with players ranked in the top 200. Thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Fully agree that we should harmonize the inclusion criteria for the lists of male and female players. There does not seem to be a valid reason to justify their difference, the current setup must surely be confusing to our readers. The criteria suggested by Fyunck(click) are fine with me. The women's list's criteria are historically unbalanced, a clear case of recentism, and therefore it makes sense to use the men's criteria instead. It also addresses the unbalance between open era and pre-ope era by changing the ranking criteria from top 5 to top 10.--Wolbo (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

We should also consider changing the names of these articles; they are after all not generic, comprehensive lists of all players, but a selection of leading players. Problem is that using adjectives like 'leading', 'world-class' or 'top' in the title might come into conflict with original research guidelines.--Wolbo (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

While we are updating we might as well homogenize the layouts and field names, there is no reason for them to be different. The women's list in my view has a more logical field order and naming but we probably don't need a separate field for 'Grand Slam singles titles'. How about we replace that field with 'Hall of Fame' (which would list the year of induction) and move the highest ranking from the notes to a separate field so it becomes sortable?--Wolbo (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Season article creations (again)

We have an editor who keeps creating 2015 Kei Nishikori tennis season... against the consensus we all compromised on. I nominated it for speedy deletion as has been done with others but apparently it's a non-starter this time. It has already been deleted before (perhaps more than once) so I'm not sure as to why it can't be speedy deleted. Place your comments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2015_Kei_Nishikori_tennis_season. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Lucky loser : more precisely...

Hello,

On the article Lucky loser, it is written:

It is rare for a lucky loser to win an Association of Tennis Professionals tournament. [...] In total, seven men have done it from 1978 through 2010.

Could somebody precise who are these 7 men (besides Clavet, Miniussi, Stakhovsky and Ram ; 3 are missing). We have indeed a problem on the french article where only 6 players are indicated, and we would like to complete this list with the 7th.

Thanks. A.Gust14 (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I added two of the others, plus the only female to do it. The 7th is elusive or doesn't exist. The ATP Tour is quoted as saying when Ram won he was the 7th male to do so (I listed the source). The ATP could have been wrong or misquoted. There have been none since Rajeev Ram won in 2009, so it's from before 2009. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. But if the 7th eventually doesn't exist, why letting "In total, seven men have done it from 1978 through 2010." ? A.Gust14 (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

We have reliable sources that say there are 7 male winners and 1 female winner. What I may think makes little difference if the sources tell us otherwise. I added another source that says there are eight total men and women lucky loser winners. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

A few edits ago there were two references, but they were removed (link rot). When I mentioned this issue on Talk:Lucky_loser, I have added link to Internet Archive version of one of the links from older revisions. --Kompik (talk) 07:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh I didn't have seen your discussion on Talk:Lucky_loser. We have the same problem at the same time on fr.wiki and en.wiki...

So I would precise that there are 7 male winners but that the 7th's name is unknown. Thanks for your help.
Another problem : sources don't precise if Andrea Jaeger won Las Vegas in January or in September 1980. In fact, she won both tournaments : in January, this source indicates that she was qualifier (not lucky loser) and in September, ITF website proves that she was seeded. So where is the lucky loser status...? A.Gust14 (talk) 07:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Two things... 1) the January Vegas event was an ITF futures tournament, not a WTA tournament, so I don't think that one counts. And 2) what does seeding have to do with qualifying? Players sometimes have to go through qualifiers to make a tournament roster even if they are ranked. In 1981 Borg wanted to play a reduced schedule because of burn-out and the tour told him no, if he didn't play enough he'd have to go through qualifiers to play each event. He retired instead. My recollection on the Vegas event (which might be hazy) was that Andrea Jaeger was only like 14 or 15 and zooming up the rankings and wasn't on many original tournament rosters. She had to qualify (even at that earlier futures event in January). Come September and the Vegas event is full except for qualifiers. Jaeger lost in qualifiers so she didn't make the roster. But I think Chris Evert got sick or injured at the last moment so they took the highest ranked losing qualifier.... Jaeger. She was given a 6 seed in the event. Anyway that's what I remember reading way back when. But the WTA and ESPN agree that she was a Lucky Loser in Vegas. They just don't say why. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Another thing. Some other guides have listed that player Kay McDaniel won a tournament as a lucky loser. It was the Atlanta Avon event of March 1980 where she beat Renee Richards in the final. But that was also a Futures ITF event that shouldn't count as a WTA event. I think the WTA media guide mixed up that tournament with the official WTA Atlanta event, the Davison's Tennis Classic, where McDaniel was obliterated in the first round. It's also possible that I'm remembering things wrong with Jaeger in Vegas and that the WTA media guide has been spewing out an error for years, which everyone under the sun picks up and reports. You never know. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I trust you when you say the January Vegas event was an ITF futures tournaments. But do you have any source which could prove that futures were ITF tournaments at this time ? A.Gust14 (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, is there an article on en.wikipedia on the categorisation of tennis tournaments since the beginnings of ATP and WTA ? A.Gust14 (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually your source above shows it was a futures event. And we have articles on each year of the WTA tours. 1980 is right here with a box at the bottom that links to each years WTA events. Here is a link that tells of that Vegas tournament. What's amazing about that minor tournament is that Jaeger had no points at all to enter it, so she had to go through pre-qualifying just to get to qualifying. 5 matches in pre-qualifying, 3 in qualifying and then 5 in the main event. She had to win 13 straight matches. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I put 2 sources, but I don't understand how they prove that Futures were ITF tournaments at this time. If you mean this source, it is actually common to get WTA tournaments' results published on ITF website. See this current one for instance. Could you precise how it proves that Futures tournaments were part of ITF and not of WTA ? I'm sorry, it is because we have a controversy with that on fr.wikipedia and maybe you could help to solve it. A.Gust14 (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

That event was not part of the WTA Avon or Colgate tour. Whether the WTA recognizes those Avon futures as WTA wins is their own business I guess. The 70's and 80s were the dark ages as far as competing tours, players being banned from events because they were part of the wrong tour, etc... The Avon Futures were absolutely a separate Circuit from the main tour... probably closer to the men's Challenger tour today. The mens Challenger today is part of the ATP but it's their minor league and not part of the main tour records. The 1980 Ladies Futures were something similar... sponsored by the WTA as their training ground lesser circuit. Remember the ladies even today don't really have tour like the men's Challenger tour. The ITF events for men end at the $25,000 level. From there you leave the ITF events and move to the ATP Challenger circuit with all kinds of levels of pay scale and payouts. Then the really good ones move on to the ATP main tour. The ladies today have the ITF events that pay from $15,000 to $100,000...no real Challenger Circuit (although they do now have the WTA 125 events. The WTA 125 events are WTA sponsored and are similar to the highest level men's Challenger events. But back then the ATP Tour or WTA Tour didn't really exist. They were unions the players belonged to while the Tours were sponsored by the likes of Avon or Colgate or Virginia Slims. Very blurry as far as ITF or WTA when using hindsight. But they were different circuits for sure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Another article about it is on page 24 in this Idaho newspaper. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Another article with way too much detail

I do congratulate the editors who put so much effort into tennis-related articles, but the near match-by-match narration of players' careers, such as is found in Eugenie Bouchard, for example, is just way too much detail for an encyclopedia article. If it is thought desirable to document match-by-match results within Wikipedia, these should be hived off to a big table somewhere. The "Career" section of the player's article should give readers a more accessible and digestible overview of the important events in the player's career, not this huge and virtually unreadable mass of minute detail. 109.145.19.122 (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

NOTICE: Persondata has been officially deprecated

Persondata has been deprecated and the template and input data are subject to removal from all bio articles in the near future. For those editors who entered accurate data into the persondata templates of tennis players and other bio subjects, you are advised to manually transfer that data to Wikidata before the impending mass deletion occurs in order to preserve accurate data. Here are three examples of Wikidata for notable swimmers: Ryan Lochte, Mary Wayte and Dara Torres. If you have any more questions about the persondata removal, Wikidata, etc., please ping me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

New ATP website

The ATP launched a new website today. Haven't yet had the chance to look at it in detail but my first impression is positive, a nice and fresh visual design and it is easier to navigate than the new French and Australian Open websites. But of course for us Wikipedians the most important question by far is do the references and external links still work? The answer seems to be a resounding 'no'. The links to the player profiles, tournament profiles and tournament results archive all result in a 404-error page. The few news articles I have tested so far go to the wrong news item. Hopefully all links can be updated via an automated bot otherwise we have a repeat of the atptennis.com > atpworldtour.com disaster. FYI we currently have 18,804 (!) wikilinks to the ATP website.--Wolbo (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, all player profile links are now broken. I didn't find any way to make {{ATP}} work with the new profiles. For example http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/SF36.aspx is now http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/igor-sijsling/sf36/overview. And if you remove the player name or anything else in the address you get an error. --Stryn (talk) 08:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You can actually write whatever you want instead of the name, the only thing that matter is the ATP code (1 & 2) for the {{ATP}} is it possible to add the PAGENAMEE variable like this http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/{{PAGENAMEE}}/{{Trim|{{{1|{{{id|}}}}}}}}/overview

In it.wiki seems to work fine. --Asdalol (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Asdalol for that info. Funny to see that www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/cristiano-ronaldo/sf36/overview actually works. We should though, before we start updating any templates, make sure we have a complete mapping overview of the situation. It does seem that the tournament draw pdfs (e.g. www.atpworldtour.com/posting/2008/741/mds.pdf) still work properly but that is the only type of functioning ATP link I can find so far.--Wolbo (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Prize money WTA

On 2015 Topshelf Open or 2015 Aegon Open Nottingham, it is written 250,000 $ as prize money. But WTA rather indicates 226,750 $ if I'm not wrong, isn't it ? A.Gust14 (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)